Add spec coverage for models/form/custom_emoji_batch class

[mjankowski]

Required adding another fabricator. Gets close to full coverage on the class, including the main action option paths through the save method. Pulled out a private method for the two ways of finding categories in the update action.

If we wanted more refactor - there is probably a way here to better aggragate the permissions checks up front, and/or group together the "pairsed" options (list/unlist, enable/disble) ... but I wanted to keep this coverage focused on this pass.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (1820bad) 83.49% compared to head (62b89a7) 83.67%.
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #28388      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   83.49%   83.67%   +0.18%     
==========================================
  Files        1038     1038              
  Lines       28245    28245              
  Branches     4558     4558              
==========================================
+ Hits        23584    23635      +51     
+ Misses       3534     3482      -52     
- Partials     1127     1128       +1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[ClearlyClaire]

Can we do without the refactor? I'm afraid this could lead to different object shapes because the i-var would not be defined for every instance.

[mjankowski]

Can we do without the refactor? I'm afraid this could lead to different object shapes because the i-var would not be defined for every instance.

Removed the memoization method, just the specs now.

I believe in ruby 3.3 there's some improved performance/warning mode that you can run with to help identify SHAPE_TOO_COMPLEX classes -- may be worth running this either as a one-off audit, or regular part of CI?

[ClearlyClaire]

I believe in ruby 3.3 there's some improved performance/warning mode that you can run with to help identify SHAPE_TOO_COMPLEX classes -- may be worth running this either as a one-off audit, or regular part of CI?

Yeah, that sounds like a good idea!